Gun Control 2022 (IV) - Gun Rights, Control, & Government

[Thomasi]

Okay and? its not the reason today. It seems like guns are the only time conservatives come to the "defense" of minorities almost like its an excuse to say gun control bad despite no one in liberal states proposing gun control for racist reasons.

No it definitely still was the reason today, hence why minorities could almost never carry even with good reason.

Almost no one carried in NYC.

[Washington Resistance Army]

No it definitely still was the reason today, hence why minorities could almost never carry even with good reason.

Almost no one carried in NYC.

Except the rich, politicians and people with enough money to bribe the cops. All the undesirables (read: poor people) didn't get that privilege.

[Thomasi]

Almost no one carried in NYC.

Except the rich, politicians and people with enough money to bribe the cops. All the undesirables (read: poor people) didn't get that privilege.

The rich and politicians just have armed body guards. Just because they don't want common folk to be armed doesn't make it a race thing, its a class thing and tbh I don't care why they won't allow guns, a city that large and compact needs to be gun free.

[Gun Manufacturers]

Except the rich, politicians and people with enough money to bribe the cops. All the undesirables (read: poor people) didn't get that privilege.

The rich and politicians just have armed body guards. Just because they don't want common folk to be armed doesn't make it a race thing, its a class thing and tbh I don't care why they won't allow guns, a city that large and compact needs to be gun free.

Get the criminals guns first, then MAYBE we'll consider it. But not really.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Except the rich, politicians and people with enough money to bribe the cops. All the undesirables (read: poor people) didn't get that privilege.

The rich and politicians just have armed body guards. Just because they don't want common folk to be armed doesn't make it a race thing, its a class thing and tbh I don't care why they won't allow guns, a city that large and compact needs to be gun free.

You know I would make a comment about this being a terrible take but you've had so many of those so far it doesn't even feel noteworthy lol

[Arengin Union]

Dont quite get the logic of arguing that the 2nd Amendment is racist and then wanting it to be overturned or guns to be highly regulated since those regulations tend to target minorities a lot more. But hey, I guess libs are just not very good at consistency among with getting SCOTUS judges.

Nah conservates use the past racist gun laws that THEY put in place as reason why non racists gun control laws should be banned in liberal states.

Okay and? What's to tell me current gun laws aren't racist? Best we do away with them in the interest of equality.

[Arengin Union]

The rich and politicians just have armed body guards. Just because they don't want common folk to be armed doesn't make it a race thing, its a class thing and tbh I don't care why they won't allow guns, a city that large and compact needs to be gun free.

You know I would make a comment about this being a terrible take but you've had so many of those so far it doesn't even feel noteworthy lol

thanks now I know not to take him seriously

[Thomasi]

Nah conservates use the past racist gun laws that THEY put in place as reason why non racists gun control laws should be banned in liberal states.

Okay and? What's to tell me current gun laws aren't racist? Best we do away with them in the interest of equality.

We know they aren't because we see the difference between how minorities are treated in blue states vs red states where actual racist laws are inacted.

[The Emerald Legion]

The law in question was put in place in 1913 and was explicitly to avoid undesirables from carrying arms.

Okay and? its not the reason today. It seems like guns are the only time conservatives come to the "defense" of minorities almost like its an excuse to say gun control bad despite no one in liberal states proposing gun control for racist reasons.

That's still the reason. Democrats are racist as fuck.

[Galloism]

The law in question was put in place in 1913 and was explicitly to avoid undesirables from carrying arms.

Okay and? its not the reason today. It seems like guns are the only time conservatives come to the "defense" of minorities almost like its an excuse to say gun control bad despite no one in liberal states proposing gun control for racist reasons.

I mean, I don't disagree with you, and the "liberals" (I use that term in the American sense) go on the attack of minorities over gun rights regularly, and even use racist scaremongering about rulings such as this. Turns out there's a lot of hypocrisy out there.

[Atlantic Isles]

I’ll throw my hat in the ring here with a message to the people who argue that assault weapons should be banned because “ ThE fOuNdInG fAtHeRs OnLy HaD mUsKeTs”.

If modern firearms should be banned because they weren’t a thing when the founding fathers wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights, then the same standard needs to be applied to every other constitutional right. For instance, the 4th Amendment’s protections, by this standard, do not apply to electronic devices or records. The 1st Amendment also does not apply to any sort of electronic media, be it television, radio, or the internet. The supposition that the Founding Fathers couldn’t foresee that technology would evolve and develop over time is ridiculous.

I’ll take a stab at some of the other tactics this crowd tends to use:

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/gunsplaining-fanatics-weird-weaponry-fetishes-18892972.amp
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/03/06/the-nra-and-its-allies-use-jargon-to-bully-gun-control-supporters/
These two articles seem to assert that being knowledgeable about firearms and correcting the many false claims made by gun-control advocates is wrong, one even calls it “bullying”. A quote from the top article: “…the implication being that if you don’t understand guns intimately, then you’re not qualified to discuss their control.” YES. If you want to regulate something, you need to understand it. Perhaps not intimately, but you need to have a basic understanding of the thing that you intend to regulate. Many advocates for gun control (and most, if not all advocates for the most extreme measures) have no knowledge of or experience with firearms. I would be willing to bet that most people who go out to protest for gun control (as is their constitutional right) have never fired or even touched a gun before. I’ll direct you to the “shoulder thing that goes up” video (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo). These same people who cry “gUnSpLaInInG” would love to see climate-change deniers have true facts and data presented to them in the same format, but when these people who wish to place extreme restrictions on firearms are corrected, they claim that they are being bullied. God forbid someone actually have knowledge of the subject matter.

The majority of mass shootings are committed with handguns. Not nearly as much attention is paid to handguns, but when an AR- or AK- pattern rifle is used in a shooting, there are calls to ban these “dangerous weapons of war”, meanwhile, pistols kill people every single day in cities like Chicago, Baltimore, and Detroit. But the scary-looking weapons get the attention.

Many gun-control laws, like the Mulford Act, are rooted in racism. The Mulford Act (which, by the way, passed with a Democratic majority) was designed to target armed members of the Black Panther Party conducting “copwatching” in Oakland.

Criminals don’t follow the law. There would be ways and means for someone to obtain an “assault weapon” even if they were banned. Evil WILL do evil. And sure, items like hammers, knives, and baseball bats can’t kill as many people in the same timeframe, but chemicals and bombs sure can. People who are hell-bent on committing a mass atrocity will stop at nothing to do it, and that brings me to one of my biggest points:
Gun control targets the how, not the why. As long as there is a why, someone will find a how. Address mental health, and let law-abiding citizens keep their guns- all of them, because you don’t want the rest of the Constitution to stop applying to modern tech.

And to all the leftists out there who are still reading (oh wait, there are none), I’ll leave you with this quote from your hero, Karl Marx:
“Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary”

[Thomasi]

I’ll throw my hat in the ring here with a message to the people who argue that assault weapons should be banned because “ ThE fOuNdInG fAtHeRs OnLy HaD mUsKeTs”.

If modern firearms should be banned because they weren’t a thing when the founding fathers wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights, then the same standard needs to be applied to every other constitutional right. For instance, the 4th Amendment’s protections, by this standard, do not apply to electronic devices or records. The 1st Amendment also does not apply to any sort of electronic media, be it television, radio, or the internet. The supposition that the Founding Fathers couldn’t foresee that technology would evolve and develop over time is ridiculous.

I’ll take a stab at some of the other tactics this crowd tends to use:

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/gunsplaining-fanatics-weird-weaponry-fetishes-18892972.amp
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/03/06/the-nra-and-its-allies-use-jargon-to-bully-gun-control-supporters/
These two articles seem to assert that being knowledgeable about firearms and correcting the many false claims made by gun-control advocates is wrong, one even calls it “bullying”. A quote from the top article: “…the implication being that if you don’t understand guns intimately, then you’re not qualified to discuss their control.” YES. If you want to regulate something, you need to understand it. Perhaps not intimately, but you need to have a basic understanding of the thing that you intend to regulate. Many advocates for gun control (and most, if not all advocates for the most extreme measures) have no knowledge of or experience with firearms. I would be willing to bet that most people who go out to protest for gun control (as is their constitutional right) have never fired or even touched a gun before. I’ll direct you to the “shoulder thing that goes up” video (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo). These same people who cry “gUnSpLaInInG” would love to see climate-change deniers have true facts and data presented to them in the same format, but when these people who wish to place extreme restrictions on firearms are corrected, they claim that they are being bullied. God forbid someone actually have knowledge of the subject matter.

The majority of mass shootings are committed with handguns. Not nearly as much attention is paid to handguns, but when an AR- or AK- pattern rifle is used in a shooting, there are calls to ban these “dangerous weapons of war”, meanwhile, pistols kill people every single day in cities like Chicago, Baltimore, and Detroit. But the scary-looking weapons get the attention.

Many gun-control laws, like the Mulford Act, are rooted in racism. The Mulford Act (which, by the way, passed with a Democratic majority) was designed to target armed members of the Black Panther Party conducting “copwatching” in Oakland.

Criminals don’t follow the law. There would be ways and means for someone to obtain an “assault weapon” even if they were banned. Evil WILL do evil. And sure, items like hammers, knives, and baseball bats can’t kill as many people in the same timeframe, but chemicals and bombs sure can. People who are hell-bent on committing a mass atrocity will stop at nothing to do it, and that brings me to one of my biggest points:
Gun control targets the how, not the why. As long as there is a why, someone will find a how. Address mental health, and let law-abiding citizens keep their guns- all of them, because you don’t want the rest of the Constitution to stop applying to modern tech.

And to all the leftists out there who are still reading (oh wait, there are none), I’ll leave you with this quote from your hero, Karl Marx:
“Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary”

Except speech is speech regardless how how you use it. Like theyre is no functional difference between electronic speech and non electronic speech. I can agree with the 4th as its explicit, Firearms as we know them today didn't get invented until the mid 1885 and the bullets until mid 1800s. No part of modern firearms are the same other than the trigger. Pre 1885 firearms were in effect a more powerful sling shot, you put explosive powder in the tube, pack it down with a stick, put a ball into it, and then pull a trigger that created a spark causing an explosion. 20 seconds was the fastest this could be done.

Post 1885 you could now load bullets, and use a mechanized system to propel the bullet with just a pull of the trigger. Which would lead to the machine guns of WWI. Clearly we are talking about two different weapons that just happen to have the same end result.

[The Two Jerseys]

I’ll throw my hat in the ring here with a message to the people who argue that assault weapons should be banned because “ ThE fOuNdInG fAtHeRs OnLy HaD mUsKeTs”.

If modern firearms should be banned because they weren’t a thing when the founding fathers wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights, then the same standard needs to be applied to every other constitutional right. For instance, the 4th Amendment’s protections, by this standard, do not apply to electronic devices or records. The 1st Amendment also does not apply to any sort of electronic media, be it television, radio, or the internet. The supposition that the Founding Fathers couldn’t foresee that technology would evolve and develop over time is ridiculous.

I’ll take a stab at some of the other tactics this crowd tends to use:

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/gunsplaining-fanatics-weird-weaponry-fetishes-18892972.amp
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/03/06/the-nra-and-its-allies-use-jargon-to-bully-gun-control-supporters/
These two articles seem to assert that being knowledgeable about firearms and correcting the many false claims made by gun-control advocates is wrong, one even calls it “bullying”. A quote from the top article: “…the implication being that if you don’t understand guns intimately, then you’re not qualified to discuss their control.” YES. If you want to regulate something, you need to understand it. Perhaps not intimately, but you need to have a basic understanding of the thing that you intend to regulate. Many advocates for gun control (and most, if not all advocates for the most extreme measures) have no knowledge of or experience with firearms. I would be willing to bet that most people who go out to protest for gun control (as is their constitutional right) have never fired or even touched a gun before. I’ll direct you to the “shoulder thing that goes up” video (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo). These same people who cry “gUnSpLaInInG” would love to see climate-change deniers have true facts and data presented to them in the same format, but when these people who wish to place extreme restrictions on firearms are corrected, they claim that they are being bullied. God forbid someone actually have knowledge of the subject matter.

The majority of mass shootings are committed with handguns. Not nearly as much attention is paid to handguns, but when an AR- or AK- pattern rifle is used in a shooting, there are calls to ban these “dangerous weapons of war”, meanwhile, pistols kill people every single day in cities like Chicago, Baltimore, and Detroit. But the scary-looking weapons get the attention.

Many gun-control laws, like the Mulford Act, are rooted in racism. The Mulford Act (which, by the way, passed with a Democratic majority) was designed to target armed members of the Black Panther Party conducting “copwatching” in Oakland.

Criminals don’t follow the law. There would be ways and means for someone to obtain an “assault weapon” even if they were banned. Evil WILL do evil. And sure, items like hammers, knives, and baseball bats can’t kill as many people in the same timeframe, but chemicals and bombs sure can. People who are hell-bent on committing a mass atrocity will stop at nothing to do it, and that brings me to one of my biggest points:
Gun control targets the how, not the why. As long as there is a why, someone will find a how. Address mental health, and let law-abiding citizens keep their guns- all of them, because you don’t want the rest of the Constitution to stop applying to modern tech.

And to all the leftists out there who are still reading (oh wait, there are none), I’ll leave you with this quote from your hero, Karl Marx:
“Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary”

Except speech is speech regardless how how you use it. Like theyre is no functional difference between electronic speech and non electronic speech. I can agree with the 4th as its explicit, Firearms as we know them today didn't get invented until the mid 1885 and the bullets until mid 1800s. No part of modern firearms are the same other than the trigger. Pre 1885 firearms were in effect a more powerful sling shot, you put explosive powder in the tube, pack it down with a stick, put a ball into it, and then pull a trigger that created a spark causing an explosion. 20 seconds was the fastest this could be done.

Post 1885 you could now load bullets, and use a mechanized system to propel the bullet with just a pull of the trigger. Which would lead to the machine guns of WWI. Clearly we are talking about two different weapons that just happen to have the same end result.

>Shouting in the town square
>Shouting on national television

ClEaRlY tHe SaMe ThInG!

[Galloism]

I’ll throw my hat in the ring here with a message to the people who argue that assault weapons should be banned because “ ThE fOuNdInG fAtHeRs OnLy HaD mUsKeTs”.

If modern firearms should be banned because they weren’t a thing when the founding fathers wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights, then the same standard needs to be applied to every other constitutional right. For instance, the 4th Amendment’s protections, by this standard, do not apply to electronic devices or records. The 1st Amendment also does not apply to any sort of electronic media, be it television, radio, or the internet. The supposition that the Founding Fathers couldn’t foresee that technology would evolve and develop over time is ridiculous.

I’ll take a stab at some of the other tactics this crowd tends to use:

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/gunsplaining-fanatics-weird-weaponry-fetishes-18892972.amp
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/03/06/the-nra-and-its-allies-use-jargon-to-bully-gun-control-supporters/
These two articles seem to assert that being knowledgeable about firearms and correcting the many false claims made by gun-control advocates is wrong, one even calls it “bullying”. A quote from the top article: “…the implication being that if you don’t understand guns intimately, then you’re not qualified to discuss their control.” YES. If you want to regulate something, you need to understand it. Perhaps not intimately, but you need to have a basic understanding of the thing that you intend to regulate. Many advocates for gun control (and most, if not all advocates for the most extreme measures) have no knowledge of or experience with firearms. I would be willing to bet that most people who go out to protest for gun control (as is their constitutional right) have never fired or even touched a gun before. I’ll direct you to the “shoulder thing that goes up” video (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo). These same people who cry “gUnSpLaInInG” would love to see climate-change deniers have true facts and data presented to them in the same format, but when these people who wish to place extreme restrictions on firearms are corrected, they claim that they are being bullied. God forbid someone actually have knowledge of the subject matter.

The majority of mass shootings are committed with handguns. Not nearly as much attention is paid to handguns, but when an AR- or AK- pattern rifle is used in a shooting, there are calls to ban these “dangerous weapons of war”, meanwhile, pistols kill people every single day in cities like Chicago, Baltimore, and Detroit. But the scary-looking weapons get the attention.

Many gun-control laws, like the Mulford Act, are rooted in racism. The Mulford Act (which, by the way, passed with a Democratic majority) was designed to target armed members of the Black Panther Party conducting “copwatching” in Oakland.

Criminals don’t follow the law. There would be ways and means for someone to obtain an “assault weapon” even if they were banned. Evil WILL do evil. And sure, items like hammers, knives, and baseball bats can’t kill as many people in the same timeframe, but chemicals and bombs sure can. People who are hell-bent on committing a mass atrocity will stop at nothing to do it, and that brings me to one of my biggest points:
Gun control targets the how, not the why. As long as there is a why, someone will find a how. Address mental health, and let law-abiding citizens keep their guns- all of them, because you don’t want the rest of the Constitution to stop applying to modern tech.

And to all the leftists out there who are still reading (oh wait, there are none), I’ll leave you with this quote from your hero, Karl Marx:
“Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary”

Except speech is speech regardless how how you use it.

How so? How is speech, like shouting on a street corner with 20 passersby, the same as typing words into a computer (not even using your mouth) using a typing instrument, which is then broadcast to millions instantaneously?

I'd like to point out even the commercial typewriter didn't exist until 1874. There's no similar mechanism like what you're using to convey thoughts that was known to be in existence during the creation of the first amendment.

There is literally every functional and outcome difference between this and speech as it was understood in 1791, and yet it's still protected.

[American Legionaries]

Except speech is speech regardless how how you use it.

How so? How is speech, like shouting on a street corner with 20 passersby, the same as typing words into a computer (not even using your mouth) using a typing instrument, which is then broadcast to millions instantaneously?

I'd like to point out even the commercial typewriter didn't exist until 1874. There's no similar mechanism like what you're using to convey thoughts that was known to be in existence during the creation of the first amendment.

There is literally every functional and outcome difference between this and speech as it was understood in 1791, and yet it's still protected.

Surely the people of the late 18th century would be boggled by the idea that an AR-15 was a rifle, but unfazed by the idea that a Samsung Galaxy S20 is a newspaper.

[Atlantic Isles]

Except speech is speech regardless how how you use it. Like theyre is no functional difference between electronic speech and non electronic speech. I can agree with the 4th as its explicit, Firearms as we know them today didn't get invented until the mid 1885 and the bullets until mid 1800s. No part of modern firearms are the same other than the trigger. Pre 1885 firearms were in effect a more powerful sling shot, you put explosive powder in the tube, pack it down with a stick, put a ball into it, and then pull a trigger that created a spark causing an explosion. 20 seconds was the fastest this could be done.

Post 1885 you could now load bullets, and use a mechanized system to propel the bullet with just a pull of the trigger. Which would lead to the machine guns of WWI. Clearly we are talking about two different weapons that just happen to have the same end result.

I see what you’re saying, but I disagree. The functional difference between print/spoken-word (non-broadcast speech) and electronic speech is extremely similar to the difference between pre- and post-1885 firearms:
Digital speech and media can be spread much further and much more rapidly than non-electronic equivalents- a message that would take several weeks to travel from Maryland to California now takes mere seconds. Things happen faster both in the case of electronic media and in the case of automatic/semiautomatic firearms.

[Informed Consent]

Except speech is speech regardless how how you use it. Like theyre is no functional difference between electronic speech and non electronic speech. I can agree with the 4th as its explicit, Firearms as we know them today didn't get invented until the mid 1885 and the bullets until mid 1800s. No part of modern firearms are the same other than the trigger. Pre 1885 firearms were in effect a more powerful sling shot, you put explosive powder in the tube, pack it down with a stick, put a ball into it, and then pull a trigger that created a spark causing an explosion. 20 seconds was the fastest this could be done.

Post 1885 you could now load bullets, and use a mechanized system to propel the bullet with just a pull of the trigger. Which would lead to the machine guns of WWI. Clearly we are talking about two different weapons that just happen to have the same end result.

You probably think you made a point, except for the fact that the primary purpose of the second amendment is to give US citizens a vehicle of protection against a government gone rogue.
So the nature and evolution of small arms is quite beside the point.
It does not matter if the weapon is ballistic, directed energy, or magic wands, whatever is in the hands of government, some version of it should rest in the hands of a free citizenry as well.

[Galloism]

Except speech is speech regardless how how you use it. Like theyre is no functional difference between electronic speech and non electronic speech. I can agree with the 4th as its explicit, Firearms as we know them today didn't get invented until the mid 1885 and the bullets until mid 1800s. No part of modern firearms are the same other than the trigger. Pre 1885 firearms were in effect a more powerful sling shot, you put explosive powder in the tube, pack it down with a stick, put a ball into it, and then pull a trigger that created a spark causing an explosion. 20 seconds was the fastest this could be done.

Post 1885 you could now load bullets, and use a mechanized system to propel the bullet with just a pull of the trigger. Which would lead to the machine guns of WWI. Clearly we are talking about two different weapons that just happen to have the same end result.

You probably think you made a point, except for the fact that the primary purpose of the second amendment is to give US citizens a vehicle of protection against a government gone rogue.
So the nature and evolution of small arms is quite beside the point.
It does not matter if the weapon is ballistic, directed energy, or magic wands, whatever is in the hands of government, some version of it should rest in the hands of a free citizenry as well.

I personally look forward to when we can create x-men.

I'm torn between invisibility, rapid healing (AKA, wolverine), and phasing through objects. All of those could be really useful.

[American Legionaries]

You probably think you made a point, except for the fact that the primary purpose of the second amendment is to give US citizens a vehicle of protection against a government gone rogue.
So the nature and evolution of small arms is quite beside the point.
It does not matter if the weapon is ballistic, directed energy, or magic wands, whatever is in the hands of government, some version of it should rest in the hands of a free citizenry as well.

I personally look forward to when we can create x-men.

I'm torn between invisibility, rapid healing (AKA, wolverine), and phasing through objects. All of those could be really useful.

I'll enjoy reading the newly immortal Clarence Thomas' opinion that the 2nd amendment protects the individual's right to mutant genes that make you shoot energy beams from your eyes.

[Informed Consent]

I personally look forward to when we can create x-men.

I'm torn between invisibility, rapid healing (AKA, wolverine), and phasing through objects. All of those could be really useful.

The civilian market will most likely be limited to something like the blur spell.
For something like claws, the Department of Condescending Paternity will no doubt mandate that they be manicured, or manufactured within safety scissor specifications, and you will of course be cited for running while your claws are deployed.

Meanwhile, this should get interesting.

https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2022/at ... nce-crisis

[American Legionaries]

I personally look forward to when we can create x-men.

I'm torn between invisibility, rapid healing (AKA, wolverine), and phasing through objects. All of those could be really useful.

The civilian market will most likely be limited to something like the blur spell.
For something like claws, the Department of Condescending Paternity will no doubt mandate that they be manicured, or manufactured within safety scissor specifications, and you will of course be cited for running while your claws are deployed.

Meanwhile, this should get interesting.

https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2022/at ... nce-crisis

Oh boy, this'll be good.

[Fartsniffage]

Except speech is speech regardless how how you use it.

How so? How is speech, like shouting on a street corner with 20 passersby, the same as typing words into a computer (not even using your mouth) using a typing instrument, which is then broadcast to millions instantaneously?

I'd like to point out even the commercial typewriter didn't exist until 1874. There's no similar mechanism like what you're using to convey thoughts that was known to be in existence during the creation of the first amendment.

There is literally every functional and outcome difference between this and speech as it was understood in 1791, and yet it's still protected.

Did America not have the printing press in 1791? I feel like they did because they mentioned a free press. But maybe I'm wrong.

[Thomasi]

They should pass a law only allowing Hand made firearms to be legal.

[Galloism]

How so? How is speech, like shouting on a street corner with 20 passersby, the same as typing words into a computer (not even using your mouth) using a typing instrument, which is then broadcast to millions instantaneously?

I'd like to point out even the commercial typewriter didn't exist until 1874. There's no similar mechanism like what you're using to convey thoughts that was known to be in existence during the creation of the first amendment.

There is literally every functional and outcome difference between this and speech as it was understood in 1791, and yet it's still protected.

Did America not have the printing press in 1791? I feel like they did because they mentioned a free press. But maybe I'm wrong.

Printing press, yes - but that was done via placing individual characters in rows and then pressing them against paper really fast.

It's not mechanically similar to operating even a typewriter, much less a computer keyboard.

[American Legionaries]

They should pass a law only allowing Hand made firearms to be legal.

They should pass a law penalizing people who propose the passage of horrible laws.